The Least Encouraging Series Win Ever?
All Mets early, all Phillies late. Sound familiar?
* * * * *
This should have been the biggest win of our season. The win that gave us a 3-1 series win over the Phillies (seven wins in 10 games all told). The win that moved us a game above .500 for the first time since June 5. The win that pulled us within 2.5 games of first.
More than anything, it should have been the win that proved 2007 was over, that we were no longer shook of the Phillies, that we could take it to them and embarrass them.
It did the first three things, but the fourth, the one that really mattered, was lost piece by piece with each run the Phillies put on the board to chip away at our massive lead.
A 10-1 win would have been so demoralizing for the Phillies and so affirming for the Mets. But with each run the Phillies scored, a win that was supposed to be so demoralizing for the Phillies and so affirming for the Mets seemed only to reaffirm the central precept of the Mets-Phillies dynamic as it exists in the post-2007 world: the Phillies never say die, and over a long enough time frame, the Mets will fold.
Let me put it like this: If a baseball game were 10 innings long, does anyone doubt that the Phillies would have won?
Bristle at the hypothetical if you want to; the point is, the Phillies can walk away from this game (really, the last two games) knowing they never quit, and the Mets will walk away from it knowing what they already knew: this Phillies team is relentless; no lead is safe.
Nothing that happened this weekend changed any of that.
* * * * *
The disappointment of this game is for bloggers like me and readers like you to consider.
As for the Mets, they need to find a way to not think about it. They won 3 of 4 from the Phillies, 7 out of 10 all told. They're a game over .500. They're 2.5 games out of first.
If only that were all there was to talk about.
- A.F.O.M.G.
* * * * *
This should have been the biggest win of our season. The win that gave us a 3-1 series win over the Phillies (seven wins in 10 games all told). The win that moved us a game above .500 for the first time since June 5. The win that pulled us within 2.5 games of first.
More than anything, it should have been the win that proved 2007 was over, that we were no longer shook of the Phillies, that we could take it to them and embarrass them.
It did the first three things, but the fourth, the one that really mattered, was lost piece by piece with each run the Phillies put on the board to chip away at our massive lead.
A 10-1 win would have been so demoralizing for the Phillies and so affirming for the Mets. But with each run the Phillies scored, a win that was supposed to be so demoralizing for the Phillies and so affirming for the Mets seemed only to reaffirm the central precept of the Mets-Phillies dynamic as it exists in the post-2007 world: the Phillies never say die, and over a long enough time frame, the Mets will fold.
Let me put it like this: If a baseball game were 10 innings long, does anyone doubt that the Phillies would have won?
Bristle at the hypothetical if you want to; the point is, the Phillies can walk away from this game (really, the last two games) knowing they never quit, and the Mets will walk away from it knowing what they already knew: this Phillies team is relentless; no lead is safe.
Nothing that happened this weekend changed any of that.
* * * * *
The disappointment of this game is for bloggers like me and readers like you to consider.
As for the Mets, they need to find a way to not think about it. They won 3 of 4 from the Phillies, 7 out of 10 all told. They're a game over .500. They're 2.5 games out of first.
If only that were all there was to talk about.
- A.F.O.M.G.
posted by A Friend of Mr. Glass' at 10:56 PM
2 Comments:
How doesn't matter.
The Phillies can talk about 'fight' all they want, but when it comes down to it, their fight just isn't good enough.
All that matters is that they had plenty of opportunity to take control of the division, and yet again, they didn't. Following last year's trend of a let down after playing the Mets, they could be out of first by the break.
Every incarnation of this Phillies team has failed every time they've had the opportunity to win. Whether it was going into the final weekend last year when they finally had destiny in their own hands and lost on Saturday. Everytime they swept the Mets late in the year last year only to lose just about every game they gained on them within a week. Or how they finally 'won' and then were swept quietly out of the playoffs. They had a big lead a couple of weeks ago and the Mets caught up by playing .500 ball.
Billy Wagner pitched horribly for two days and the best they could get was 3 extra innings of baseball.
The Phillies aren't winners, far from it. Just as it was last year, their success this year is solely determined on how the Mets play. If the Mets continue to wallow around .500, then sure, the Phillies could 'win' the division. But if the Mets put it together, even only marginally, the Phillies will be their normal second-third place self.
When the two teams meet up next time, the Phillies aren't going to be thinking 'we played them tough' or 'we almost came back last time'. It'll be 'we're 3-7 against these guys'.
I am not an optimistic fellow, but they did manage to hold on to this one.. wright and reyes are playing well, Ollie has been great (ok, ok, for only two games) but the only one we dropped was by one run, we'll get those santana games... remember your post from the other day, "the mets have to remember that the game is not over yet" - neither is the season. sf then the rox, we can go in to all star break with something to look forward to. relax. and post more, work is slow as shit.
Post a Comment
<< Home